Moral Frameworks of Terrorists

This newspaper discusses, with reference to two samples, whether terrorists can appeal to a consistent moral framework. Terrorism can be, and indeed, most usually is identified in the books, as a strategy of violence that was created to promote a desired end result through instilling fear in the general public at large. You will discover, however, disagreements among many academics, from political science, rules and human protection under the law analysts, regarding the classification of terrorism that should be used in practice, as some academics dispute that the motives that energy some terrorists are politically valid. The definition of terrorism currently in use by the UN is, "any act. . . designed to cause loss of life or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a human population or engaging a federal or an international organisation to do, or avoid doing, any action. " (Annan, 2005).

Regardless of this meaning of terrorism that is employed, terrorist acts are generally defined through their assault, the internal impact of the take action, the political goal of the action and the fact they are usually perpetrated against civilians, or non-combatants. Obviously, therefore of the factors, terrorism is looked upon, everywhere, as unlawful and an illegitimate means of attaining the ends that are wanted, but as the famous stating will go, "one man's terrorism is another man's freedom fighter". Recent occasions have brought this to the fore, with the conflict in Afghanistan bringing back many thoughts for america government, who recognized the Afghan Mujahideen as 'liberty fighters' through the United States war with the Soviet Union, but recently, america federal government branding breakaway Afghan communities as terrorists, and starting a battle in Afghanistan to stop them in their terrorist acts. Nelson Mandela, ex-President of South Africa, and Nobel Laureate, was once brand a terrorist and was imprisoned for decades for his terrorist works; a explanation for terrorism, and the word terrorist thus seems to be flexible, with regards to the political context and the goals that want to be performed by the individuals supporting the country where the terrorist exists. What is certain, however, would be that the people committing the stated serves of terrorism wholly believe in what they are fighting to attain, and, so, construct some kind of moral platform to justify their actions and their beliefs. This newspaper is thinking about how and why these frameworks are designed and whether terrorists can ever before appeal to a constant moral framework for his or her actions.

As Bandura (1990) argues, terrorists have the ability to morally disengage through many psychological routes, and, therefore, this can be a societal responsibility to ensure civilised do through sociable systems which uphold compassionate behavior and which denounce, and renounce, cruelty in virtually any form. As Bandura (1990) argues, moral expectations do not function as fixed internal regulators of do, but rather, self-regulatory mechanisms do not engage until these are activated, and there are many ways in which these regulatory mechanisms can be disengaged, allowing the emergence of different kinds of do with the same moral benchmarks. Bandura (1990) further argues that political variety and the toleration of open public expressions of scepticism create the conditions that allow the emergence of troubles to suspect moral appeals, in a way that if societies are to safeguard against the incident of terrorism, they must establish public safeguards against the misuse of institutional justificatory forces for ends which can be exploitative and detrimental. So, Bandura (1990) appears to be arguing that it is the fault of the state of hawaii, which includes not ensured an effective, functioning, framework for the non-appearance of terrorism, which allows terrorism to expand, not that terrorists themselves are at fault. This sort of argument will not require an appeal to moral consistency or moral frameworks for the terrorist, but rather argues that terrorists are something of your dysfunctional modern culture, which is responsible for the appearance of terrorists.

Further to the, Atram (2006) concludes that suicide terrorism can't be explained by an individual political root cause, such as the presence of international military causes or the lack of democracy, as other factors such as internal motivations, or religious inspirations can also contribute to the desire to undertake terrorist works. As Atram (2006) argues, any simplistic accounts of terrorism, why it happens and what leads visitors to become terrorists, are destined to failure as terrorists have root moral prices and group dynamics that happen to be complex themselves and also intertwined in a complex manner. Only once these causes are fully comprehended by decision-makers will organisational and ideological alternatives which could defuse the risk of terrorism be found (Atram, 2006). Therefore, as Atram (2006) argues, terrorists have a consistent moral platform within which they work, permitting them to unilaterally respond, in concert, to achieve their ends.

There have been many terrorist acts in recent history, like the Munich massacre in 1972, during the Olympic Video games, bombing of flights including Pan Am Journey 103 over Lockerbie, gas episodes in Tokyo, bombing campaigns in Ireland by the IRA, the 9/11 attacks on america and, following this, the Bali bombings, the London and Madrid bombings. Terrorism is a tactic that has been used for a long time to achieve political ends, but it has come to the fore through the significant loss of life in the 9/11 bombings, and the subsequent wars, as this was an attack contrary to the currently most effective nation on the planet, on home soil, killing thousands of innocents. Terrorism, as a politics tool, has therefore become used almost as a regular term, in the mass media, by academics, in family homes, and, indeed, the populace is frightened, perhaps by hyper coverage of terrorism in the multimedia, perhaps by the problems themselves, but, for reasons uknown, the populace is worried, and so the terrorists are being successful, under the explanations of terrorism which were mentioned herein.

The current newspaper will discuss two types of terrorist groups in order to determine the moral construction to which they adhere, to evaluate whether this construction is reliable, and, if, indeed, it can ever before be argued that terrorists can appeal to a constant moral construction.

Colombia has been involved in what is termed an 'armed have difficulty' for days gone by four decades, because the death of Gaitan in the 1960s, when the FARC and the ELN were founded, ironically, as a call to stop La Violencia which possessed begun following Gaitan's death. At this time, these two guerrilla groupings campaigned for serenity, for free elections and then for the return of a leftist authorities. The FARC and the ELN have, however, in recent ages, become embroiled in the drugs trade, gaining money through the drugs trade to be able to fund their 'battle' on the Colombian administration, and their deal with for serenity in Colombia. In response to this, it is well known that the current administration funded paramilitary teams to fight the guerrillas[1], although paramilitary communities have themselves become embroiled in the drugs trade and are recognized to have committed acts of terrorism against civilians and non-combatants, such that there is currently a war between the guerrillas and the paramilitaries.

Thus, the situation in Colombia is extremely intricate. FARC and ELN guerrillas started with the mentioned aim of returning Colombia to tranquility, through the instigation of free elections, seeking a good politics end to La Violencia. Their moral framework was just that: a moral platform through which these people were seeking to come back Colombia to some semblance of normality. However, as we have seen, and because it is very easy, in a country where it is so difficult to earn a living any other way, the guerrilla organizations became embroiled in the drugs trade, and, as a result, their moral construction for committing terrorist serves has changed, and even, how they commit their terrorist works has modified, with IRA terrorists training the guerrillas in bombing strategies, and these being used on Colombian military focuses on, however to great impact, with the concomitant lack of many lives. Thus, the Colombian circumstance is extremely sophisticated, with guerrilla teams starting out with mainly political aims, but with these same groupings now largely struggling with to preserve control of their talk about of the drugs trade, leading to armed combat between members of these guerrilla communities and government-backed paramilitaries whenever they come directly into contact.

Thus, the FARC and the ELN, although they started out as politics terrorists are now seen as teams which use their skills to dominate the drugs trade, through the taking of nationwide place and the submission of thousands of farmers in the areas where they hold territory. The moral construction that these terrorist groups stick to has, therefore, first of all, radically modified over the time of activity, and has taken a far less 'helpful' move, in terms of terrorising a whole country and creating problems for Colombia in conditions of international relationships, economical development and individuals rights issues. The FARC and ELN, if indeed they stick to any framework at all, for their actions, certainly cannot argue that this framework is in any way moral and it really has not been consistent. As a result, for these sets of terrorists, who virtually hold a country to ransom, there may be no argument of a consistent moral platform that is at
place, and there can be no argument for the lifestyle of any regular moral framework for the individuals rights abuses they cause and the financial and politics havoc they create for Colombia.

The next terrorist group we will take a look at is the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Journey) of Peru, that was created as a political guerrilla group, in response to Peru's armed forces dictatorship, with the stated aim of achieving free elections within Peru and putting a communist party in control of Peru, through the Pensamiento Gonzalo ideology (named after the thinking about Guzman, the Shining Path's leader). The Shining Path got to violent means as a means of reaching its stated goals, and, indeed, may be in charge of some of the most severe massacres in Peruvian record, with Peru's individual rights record being atrocious, due to the atrocities dedicated by the Glowing Path. The Shining Way seized control of large regions of Peru, but their communist ideas were never popular with the Peruvian populace, and so their guerrilla warfare began to lose support and its own base started out to falter. The Shining Path support dropped dramatically following Guzman's take in 1992, and the take of his successor many years later, with its successor activity, Proseguir, having hardly any supporters and arguing mainly for the discharge of former Shining Path participants.

In conditions of the moral construction of the Glowing Path, their seeks were very clear and politics in scope, although the problem was complicated as Fujimori, the Peruvian Best Minister at that time, brand anyone who spoke against the federal government a terrorist (see Burt, 2006). Despite the fact that the Shining Avenue were naturally terrorists who, it has been established, were responsible for many civilian deaths, the Shining Journey had a constant moral framework to which they subscribed and which dictated their activities: the installation of communism within Peru. This framework was the reason behind the establishment of the group, and was regular across the time where the Shining Route was active within Peru. Thus, in this guerrilla group, unlike in the guerrilla groupings effective in Colombia, the moral construction for the Shining Path's actions was very clear and resolved, and consistent across the record of the Glowing Path.

We have therefore talked about two situations, of three guerrilla categories, two in Colombia, one in Peru, two which (the FARC and the ELN) have advanced in their ideology and moral construction as they shifted through time, and one which (the Shining Journey) experienced a steady moral framework in place for their activities, which informed, recognized and dictated their actions in terms of obtaining their stated aims (i. e. , the installation of communism within Peru). Thus, terrorists, and terrorist teams, as we've seen in the case of the FARC and ELN, can develop and change, in terms of their goals and their aims, and the means used to achieve these aims. As a result, their moral frameworks also change and move with the new orientation.

Under this evaluation, it is implicit that terrorists have a moral conscience, that although this moral conscience allows them to commit functions that are considered terrorist acts by society, they certainly have a moral conscience, and one which can be called after to aid their aims and their seeks, and which can be used as a means of justifying any terrorist acts that they commit. As we've seen, as Atram (2006) concludes, the introduction of terrorism can't be explained by an individual political root cause, such as the presence of international military pushes or the lack of democracy, as other factors such as mental health motivations, or religious inspirations can also donate to the desire to undertake terrorist acts. As Atram (2006) argues, any simplistic accounts of terrorism, why it happens and what leads people to become terrorists, are destined to failure as terrorists have root moral principles and group dynamics which can be complex themselves and also intertwined in a complex manner. Only when these causes are fully understood by decision-makers will organisational and ideological solutions which could defuse the threat of terrorism be found (Atram, 2006). As a result, as Atram (2006) argues, terrorists have a regular moral framework within which they work, allowing them to unilaterally action, in concert, to achieve their ends.

Thus, the FARC and the ELN, and the Glowing Way, although, as we've seen, they have got, and continue steadily to, commit terrorist acts, they can call upon a moral construction for these serves, in terms of experiencing justifiable known reasons for their aims and seeks, and how these targets are achieved, such that these serves are perpetuated under what they consider to be always a moral framework. That the rest of society will not see this framework as moral, under normal societal explanations of moral, is beyond them, beyond their understanding for, as Bandura (1990) argues, moral criteria do not function as fixed inside regulators of conduct, but instead, self-regulatory mechanisms do not participate until they are really activated, and there are many ways in which these regulatory mechanisms can be disengaged, allowing the emergence of different kinds of do with the same moral benchmarks.

This paper has discussed the problem of whether terrorists can charm to a regular moral construction. As we have seen, there are many meanings of terrorism in use in the literature, as there are disagreements regarding the meaning of terrorism[2], as some academics argue that the motives that fuel some terrorists are politically valid. Indeed, 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' seem to get been, and be, somewhat flexible conditions, depending on politics affiliation of the terrorist/terrorist function; many people would call the acts determined by the Israeli's resistant to the Palestinians, for example, terrorist functions, but these seem to be to be supported by america government, as Israel is currently one of the highest recipients of United States foreign aid. In the same way, as we've seen, Nelson Mandela, ex-President of South Africa, and Nobel Laureate, was once branded a terrorist and was imprisoned for many years for his terrorist works; a definition for terrorism, and the word terrorist thus appears to be flexible, depending on political context and the seeks that want to be achieved by people supporting the united states where the terrorist exists.

Although the word 'terrorist' and the term 'terrorism' are available to interpretation, by politicians, and under international legislation, as we've seen[3], terrorists do sign up to what they consider to be always a moral framework for their objectives, and also to support their functions to achieve these objectives. As we've seen from both instances used here, these moral frameworks can stay static throughout the annals of the terrorist group (as with the Shining Course) or can transform as time passes in response to external factors or politics events (much like the FARC and the ELN). Thus, the issue of whether terrorists can appeal to a constant moral framework, I am going to argue, is valid: indeed, although this platform may be seen as amoral by the rest of society, the terrorist identifies their aims as moral, under a moral framework, which for them is consistent in terms of resulting in desired aims. Whether this framework is consistent across time is a subject for discourse, for, as we have seen, some terrorist groupings find their objectives changing with moving external circumstances, and, consequently, their platform, whilst left over internally morally reliable, in terms of the targets, is not externally regular over time. As Atram (2006) argues, terrorists have a consistent moral construction within which they work, allowing them to unilaterally action, in concert, to attain their ends: it is this platform which allows them to function, as a product, in order to accomplish their seeks and objectives.

References

Annan, K. , 2005. Larger Freedom. Speech directed at the US at the Security Council Achieving on 17th March 2005.

Footnotes

[1] Within their work to secure, and hold on to, money from america, through their Warfare on Drugs programme.

[2] Although, as we have seen, the definition of terrorism currently used by the UN is, "any work. . . designed to cause fatality or serious physical injury to civilians or non-combatants with the goal of intimidating a society or persuasive a administration or a global organisation to do, or avoid doing, any work. " (Annan, 2005). This classification is also used by the International Offender Court, and by most individuals rights legal representatives who get excited about prosecuting terrorist works.

[3] with, as we have seen, for example, the war in Afghanistan getting back many memories for the United States government, who reinforced the Afghan Mujahideen as 'independence fighters' during the United States battle with the Soviet Union, but recently, the United States government branding breakaway Afghan teams as terrorists, and starting a warfare in Afghanistan to avoid them in their terrorist works.

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.